DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 2/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are
pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10 and 17 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: in lines 4-16, “cause the one or more processors to … activating a safety feature” should read “cause the one or more processors to … activate a safety feature”. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8, 10-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, line 2, the limitation “displaying a … audio indicator” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how an audio indicator is displayed. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to presenting a visual or audio indicator.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 19, lines 1-2, 12 and 2-3, respectively, the limitation “[delivering/deliver/display] the takeover request for a time interval” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how the takeover request is delivered for a time interval. Paragraphs 63-64 discloses takeover request 314 of figure 3B may be earlier than takeover request 304 of figure 3A, however, paragraph 63 discloses the times of figure 3A are illustrated in figure 3B for reference, therefore, paragraphs 63-64 do not appear to disclose that takeover requests 314 and 304 are both delivered to the driver in the same scenario. Paragraph 69 discloses the takeover request may be applied at a time interval before the disengage boundary. Paragraphs 65 and 70 disclose, as the time for a takeover request decreases, indicators can include increased beeping, flashing icons, or audio cues, however, paragraphs 65 and 70 do not appear to explicitly disclose the beeping, flashing, or audio cues are repeated over a time interval. It is unclear if repeatedly presenting takeover requests over a time interval is explicitly disclosed or claimed, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that presenting a visual or audio indicator inherently occurs over an interval of time. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the time interval between applying the takeover request and reaching the apparent ODD or disengage boundaries as disclosed in paragraphs 64 and 69.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, lines 1-2, the limitation “the [disengage boundary/time interval] is based on … historical driving performance” renders each claim indefinite because the historical driving performance lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, therefore, it is unclear whether the disengage boundary or time interval are based on the driving styles of drivers typical for the geographic area, or the vehicle operator’s historical driving performance, that are recited in claim 10, lines 8-10 and claim 19, lines 7-10. Paragraph 64 appears to differentiate between the historical performance of the driver and the driving trends of the population, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to basing the disengage boundary and the time interval on the vehicle operator’s historical driving performance.
Claims 6-8, 11-16 and 20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2018/0329414) in view of Harda et al. (US 2017/030052) and Moustafa et al. (US 2022/0126864), hereinafter Igarashi, Harda and Moustafa, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, as best understood, Igarashi discloses a control system for a vehicle, comprising one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors to store instructions (Igarashi; para. 60: storage unit 2690 may include a random access memory (RAM) that stores various programs to be executed by the microcomputer), which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine an end boundary to disengage an ADS feature from the vehicle (Igarashi; para. 127: it can be detected that it is necessary to switch the vehicle to the manual driving mode on the basis of detection of the exit of the expressway; para. 79: automatic driving is limited to expressways (i.e., the end boundary where automatic driving must be disengaged is marked by the dashed boundary line in fig. 3 that separates the exit from the main line)); set a disengage boundary that occurs before the end boundary (Igarashi; para. 95: branch point 300 between the expressway (main line) and the exit to the general road corresponds to a switching timing (hereinafter referred to as “switching T”) at which the vehicle traveling in the automatic driving mode is switched to the manual driving mode); determine a time to deliver a takeover request to an operator of the vehicle based on received sensor data (Igarashi; para. 79: in the vehicle control system 2000, the driver condition detector 2510 constantly monitors the condition of a driver and also a fellow passenger, and the microcomputer 2610 of the integrated control unit 2600 optimizes the timing and the notification method for notifying of switching from automatic driving to manual driving); deliver the takeover request for a time interval to the vehicle operator (Igarashi; fig. 6: perform notification S606); cause the ADS to maintain vehicle control at the end boundary based on a determination that the vehicle operator did not take over operation of the vehicle at the disengage boundary (Igarashi; paras. 119-120: in a case where no reaction has been obtained from the driver, switching to the manual driving mode is canceled. In the case of cancelling the switching, for example, an operation for ensuring safety is performed such as continuing automatic driving of the vehicle); and activating a safety feature of the vehicle using the ADS (Igarashi; para. 120: issuing a warning to surrounding vehicles or communicating the condition of the driver or a situation of an accident or the like that has happened to the driver to a management center on a cloud in addition to the operation for ensuring safety of the vehicle itself).
Igarashi does not explicitly disclose determining the time to deliver the takeover request based on driving styles of drivers within a determined geographic area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the driving styles comprise patterns in driving behavior related to compliance with speed limits that are typical for the determined geographic area.
Harda, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle handover notifications), discloses determining a time to deliver a takeover request based on driving styles of drivers within a determined geographic area surrounding a vehicle, wherein the driving styles comprise patterns in driving behavior related to compliance with speed limits that are typical for the determined geographic area (Harda; para. 53: The handover notification arrangement 1 further comprises a processing unit 15 configured to calculate an estimated average speed on the road section 10 based on the road condition information. Further, the processing unit 15 is configured to calculate an estimated time available for autonomous driving, based on the estimated average speed, and a remaining distance d from the current position of the vehicle 5, to the upcoming road section 13.; para. 52: The road information arrangement 11 further is configured to acquire road condition information representative of a road condition at the road section 10. The road condition information may comprise information affecting a driving average speed at the road section 10, such as at least one of a level of congestion at the road section 10, average speeds of vehicles 16 travelling on the road section 10, historic average speeds of vehicles having travelled on the road section 10, speed limits at the road section 10, weather condition at the road section 10, current light condition at the road section 10, and presence of roadworks at the road section 10.; para. 58: the road condition information further comprises average speeds of vehicles 16 travelling on the road section 10 and speed limits at the road section 10. In such embodiments, the processing unit may be configured to calculate the uncertainty estimate based on a comparison between the average speeds of vehicles 16 travelling on the road section 10, and speed limits at the road section 10, such that the uncertainty estimate increases for low average speeds of vehicles 16 travelling on the road section 10, compared to speed limits at the road section 10, and decreases for high average speeds of vehicles 16 travelling on the road section 10, compared to speed limits at the road section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the notification timing determined in the microcomputer of Igarashi to account for road condition information that includes historic average speeds of vehicles on a road section compared to speed limits at the road section, as disclosed by Harda, with the motivation of providing the handover notification sufficiently early to allow an occupant of the vehicle to have sufficient time to prepare for manual driving (Harda; para. 58).
Igarashi discloses, in paragraph 95, that switching timings may be different for each operator of the system, however, Igarashi, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the time to deliver the takeover request based on the vehicle operator's historical driving performance.
Moustafa, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle controls), discloses determining a time to deliver a takeover request based on a vehicle operator's historical driving performance (Moustafa; para. 918: the following types of data may be stored in the POC database: the driver takes X1 seconds longer to respond to an audio prompt than the average driver; the driver takes X2 seconds less than average to rotate his seat (e.g., this may be because the vehicle has a quick turnaround operation and/or the driver responds relatively quickly), the driver is X3 seconds slower than an average driver to move his seat longitudinally, the driver is X4 seconds faster than average to place his hands on the steering wheel, and the driver is X5 seconds faster than an average driver to engage the road when awake. While these examples discuss measurements relative to the average driver, in some embodiments information stored by the POC database may include absolute measurements (e.g., the driver takes Y1 seconds on average to respond to an audio prompt, the driver takes Y2 seconds on average to rotate his seat, etc.); para. 931: After obtaining the generic data (if utilized), the HOH module continues with obtaining the personalized data from the POC database 14715.; para. 933: The HOH module then can determine the expected driver handling behavior for each of the possible handoff locations as determined by the HOF Module 14725. If the HOH module 14730 determines that it is time for a handoff, then the driver is prompted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the notification timing determined in the microcomputer of Igarashi, as modified, to account for the driver's previous handover performance, as disclosed by Moustafa, with the motivation of accounting for the driver's personal capability when planning the handoff thereby making a better judgement as to if and when to hand off the control of the vehicle (Moustafa; para. 909).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses activating the safety feature at the disengage boundary or maintaining the safety feature if already activated (Igarashi; para. 119-120: in a case where no reaction has been obtained from the driver, switching to the manual driving mode is canceled. In the case of cancelling the switching, for example, an operation for ensuring safety is performed such as continuing automatic driving of the vehicle or finding a safe space before the point where switching to the manual driving mode is performed and to stop thereat. It is further desirable to strive for accident prevention by issuing a warning to surrounding vehicles or communicating the condition of the driver or a situation of an accident or the like that has happened to the driver to a management center on a cloud in addition to the operation for ensuring safety of the vehicle itself).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the sensor data comprises data on the vehicle operator's physical actions (Igarashi; para. 147: in-vehicle information detecting unit 2500 confirms the condition of the driver on the basis of a detection result by the driver condition detector 2510 and notifies the microcomputer 2610 of the result (step S702). The driver condition detector 2510 is capable of detecting various driver conditions on the basis of, for example, output signals from a driving monitor camera, a load sensor, a biosensor, or a driving operation device or condition check).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses delivering the takeover request comprises displaying a visual or audio indicator to the vehicle operator (Igarashi; para. 137: microcomputer 2610 outputs a control signal to the in-vehicle device 2760, the audio speaker 2710, the display unit 2720, the instrument panel 2730, and other devices and performs notification by the notification method).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses delivering the takeover request for a time interval before activating the safety feature (Igarashi; para. 81: each of T1 to T3 is set as a time period during which the driver can sufficiently prepare for switching from the automatic driving mode to the manual driving mode depending on the condition of the driver (details will be described later). For example, T1=30 seconds, T2=120 seconds, T3=300 seconds, and the like are set).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the time interval is based on the sensor data, environmental data, historical driving performance, or cloud data (Igarashi; para. 81: in a case where the traveling speed of the vehicle is high, the distance from the point 300 to the respective points 301, 302, and 303 become longer than those with a slower traveling speed).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the time interval is a value set by the vehicle operator (Igarashi; para. 94: a driver may be allowed to adjust the time length or the distance of a notification timing when a notification is made).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses determining, based on the sensor data, that the vehicle operator requires additional time to accept the takeover request (Igarashi; para. 79: driver condition detector 2510 constantly monitors the condition of a driver and also a fellow passenger, and the microcomputer 2610 of the integrated control unit 2600 optimizes the timing and the notification method for notifying of switching from automatic driving to manual driving on the basis of the condition of the driver); and extending the time interval to deliver the takeover request earlier (Igarashi; para. 81: three types of early notification timings (hereinafter referred to as “notification T1”, “notification T2”, and “notification T3”) different in premature time to the switching T are set. Moreover, for convenience, notification T1, notification T2, and notification T3 are illustrated at points 301, 302, and 303, respectively, which are separated from the switching T by a traveling distance corresponding to premature time of each of the notification timings before a point 300 which corresponds to the switching T).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the end boundary comprises a latest time the vehicle can apply the ADS feature (Igarashi; para. 127: it can be detected that it is necessary to switch the vehicle to the manual driving mode on the basis of detection of the exit of the expressway; para. 79: automatic driving is limited to expressways (i.e., the end boundary where automatic driving must be disengaged is marked by the dashed boundary line in fig. 3 that separates the exit from the main line)).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the disengage boundary is a value set by the operator (Igarashi; para. 122: a switching timing (switching T0) is set at a point before an exit from an expressway (main line). The driver can change to a switching timing closer to the exit (switching T1) than the current switching timing or, conversely, change to a switching timing (switching T2) farther away).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses determining, based on the sensor data, that the operator requires additional time to accept the takeover request (Igarashi; para. 92: In a case where a driver is drowsing, it is considered that time for awakening a person is required in addition to the premature time defined in the notification T2. Moreover, in a case where a driver is away from the driver's seat, it is considered that time for the driver or another fellow passenger to be seated in the driver's seat is required in addition to the premature time defined in the notification T2. Therefore, time for completely awakening a person from a sleeping condition or time for a person to be seated in the driver's seat and time for understanding the surrounding traffic environment is regarded as premature time at the notification T3.); and extending the disengage boundary to deliver the takeover request earlier (Igarashi; para. 122: a switching timing (switching T0) is set at a point before an exit from an expressway (main line). The driver can … change to a switching timing (switching T2) farther away).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the time interval is based on the sensor data (Igarashi; para. 79: in the vehicle control system 2000, the driver condition detector 2510 constantly monitors the condition of a driver and also a fellow passenger, and the microcomputer 2610 of the integrated control unit 2600 optimizes the timing and the notification method for notifying of switching from automatic driving to manual driving), environmental data (Harda; para. 59: In embodiments wherein the road condition information comprises a weather condition at the road section 10, and/or a current light condition at the road section 10, the processing unit may be configured to calculate the uncertainty estimate such that the uncertainty estimate increases for bad weather conditions and/or poor light conditions on the road section 10, and decreases for good weather conditions and/or good light conditions on the road section 10.; para. 62: The processing unit may be configured to set a notification time threshold value in dependence of the uncertainty estimate such that the notification time threshold value increases for high uncertainty estimates and decreases for low uncertainty estimates, where the handover notification arrangement 1 is configured to cause the output unit 7 to provide the handover notification when the estimated time available for autonomous driving falls below the notification time threshold value.), and historical driving performance (Moustafa; para. 918: the following types of data may be stored in the POC database: the driver takes X1 seconds longer to respond to an audio prompt than the average driver; the driver takes X2 seconds less than average to rotate his seat (e.g., this may be because the vehicle has a quick turnaround operation and/or the driver responds relatively quickly), the driver is X3 seconds slower than an average driver to move his seat longitudinally, the driver is X4 seconds faster than average to place his hands on the steering wheel, and the driver is X5 seconds faster than an average driver to engage the road when awake. While these examples discuss measurements relative to the average driver, in some embodiments information stored by the POC database may include absolute measurements (e.g., the driver takes Y1 seconds on average to respond to an audio prompt, the driver takes Y2 seconds on average to rotate his seat, etc.); para. 931: After obtaining the generic data (if utilized), the HOH module continues with obtaining the personalized data from the POC database 14715.; para. 933: The HOH module then can determine the expected driver handling behavior for each of the possible handoff locations as determined by the HOF Module 14725. If the HOH module 14730 determines that it is time for a handoff, then the driver is prompted.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi in view of Harda and Moustafa as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fields et al. (US 2023/0029673), hereinafter Fields.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Igarashi, as modified, discloses the disengage boundary is based on the sensor data and environmental data (Igarashi; para. 122: The driver can change to a switching timing closer to the exit (switching T1) than the current switching timing or, conversely, change to a switching timing (switching T2) farther away. FIG. 5 is a display example displayed on the display unit 2720 in the vehicle or the in-vehicle device 2760 such as a smartphone owned by a passenger such as the driver via the in-vehicle device IF 2660. T0 denotes the preset switching timing, which shows that time from the current position to T0 totals 30 seconds. Furthermore, T1 and T2 indicate upper and lower limit ranges of the switching timing that can be changed from T0. T1 and T2 are determined depending on the current traveling speed, the condition of a road on which the vehicle is travelling, or traffic conditions (degree of congestion) with the safety taken in consideration.).
Igarashi, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the disengage boundary is based on the historical driving performance.
Fields, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle controls), discloses a disengage boundary based on historical driving performance (Fields; para. 115: a vehicle operator profile may be retrieved … When a request to disable an autonomous feature is received, a risk level for the autonomous feature is determined and compared with a driver behavior setting for the autonomous feature stored in the vehicle operator profile. Based upon the risk level comparison, the autonomous vehicle retains control of vehicle or the autonomous feature is disengaged depending on which is the safer driver—the autonomous vehicle or the vehicle human occupant; para. 74: The vehicle operator profile may contain information regarding the vehicle operator's ability to manually operate the vehicle and/or past use of autonomous operation features by the vehicle operator.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the switching time determined in the microcomputer of Igarashi, as modified, to account for the vehicle operator's past use of autonomous operation features of the vehicle, as disclosed by Fields, with the motivation of preventing unsafe disengagement of the self-driving functionality of the vehicle (Fields; para. 115).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Camhi et al., in US 2020/0017124, disclose a system that identifies an environmental condition that requires changing the operational mode of a vehicle from autonomous to manual control, wherein the reaction time of the vehicle’s driver is estimated based on their detected activity, and is used to determine the point in time to request a takeover.
Laur et al., in US 2016/0378114, disclose a system that forecasts a time when a vehicle control mode should change from automated to manual control, and determines a takeover interval for notifying the vehicle’s operator based on their readiness to assume control.
Hackenberg et al., in US 2015/0094899, disclose a driver assistance system that alerts a driver to retake control of a vehicle based on the vehicle’s distance to the end of an autopilot capable route section, wherein the alerts are escalated over a time interval as the vehicle approaches the end of the route section, and an emergency stop is performed if the driver does not retake control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached on (571)270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights